ASIATODAY.ID, JAKARTA — President Prabowo Subianto has sparked renewed debate at home and abroad after publicly reaffirming Indonesia’s commitment to the Palestinian cause through its active participation in the Board of Peace (BoP)—a diplomatic forum widely seen as high-risk, uncertain, and far from delivering quick solutions.
The stance was laid out during a series of closed-door yet unusually candid meetings with Islamic mass organizations, religious leaders, pesantren figures, and senior members of Indonesia’s foreign policy establishment at the State Palace in Jakarta on February 3–4, 2026.
Speaking to religious leaders, President Prabowo stressed that Indonesia’s historic opposition to occupation remains non-negotiable. Yet, he argued that the current geopolitical deadlock surrounding Palestine requires a realistic, calculated, and cautious diplomatic approach, rather than symbolic gestures detached from global power dynamics.
Nahdlatul Ulama Chairman Yahya Cholil Staquf said the President delivered a comprehensive explanation of Indonesia’s strategic reasoning behind joining the Board of Peace, emphasizing coordination with Muslim-majority and Middle Eastern countries to avoid fragmented or counterproductive actions.
“The President underlined that every step must be taken with extreme caution so it does not end up harming the Palestinian people themselves, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank,” Yahya said.
A similar message was echoed by Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI) Chairman Anwar Iskandar, who described Prabowo’s position as a firm commitment to pursuing full Palestinian sovereignty while ensuring that the Board of Peace produces tangible humanitarian outcomes, rather than diplomatic rhetoric.
However, Indonesia’s decision to enter the Board of Peace has not gone unquestioned. In a separate dialogue with former foreign ministers and senior diplomats, President Prabowo openly acknowledged that the BoP is not a silver bullet.
Former Deputy Foreign Minister Dino Patti Djalal characterized Indonesia’s involvement as a calculated diplomatic experiment.
“At this moment, the Board of Peace is the only option on the table. There is no alternative. But the President is realistic—he understands this is not an instant solution and carries serious geopolitical risks,” Dino said.
Crucially, Dino noted that Indonesia has entered the process with an exit option.
According to him, President Prabowo made it clear that Indonesia would not hesitate to withdraw if the mechanism contradicts constitutional principles or national interests.
Former Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda added that Indonesia’s participation followed extensive consultations with Muslim-majority countries, positioning them as a potential balancing force within the Board.
“Indonesia retains full sovereignty to decide whether to continue or disengage, depending on whether this process genuinely serves the Palestinian people,” Hassan said.
In the same forum, President Prabowo reaffirmed that Indonesia’s long-standing support for a two-state solution remains unchanged.
Former Foreign Minister Alwi Shihab described this stance as “non-negotiable” in Indonesia’s foreign policy doctrine.
Beyond Palestine, the meetings also addressed domestic religious and strategic issues, including Indonesia’s plan to establish a dedicated Hajj village in Saudi Arabia and reforms in managing religious funds to strengthen the Muslim economy. Still, the Palestinian issue remained the central thread tying the discussions together.
Taken as a whole, the discussions reveal a distinctive foreign policy style under Prabowo: less populist, heavily risk-aware, and unusually transparent, yet firmly anchored in Indonesia’s constitutional mandate to oppose colonialism in all its forms.
As global expectations and domestic pressures converge, Indonesia’s gamble through the Board of Peace now stands as a defining test—a bold diplomatic breakthrough in the making, or a cautious maneuver trapped in the grey zones of international politics. (AT Network)
Follow Us at Google News and WA Channel